PAPER ON Transformational Leadership: Impact of Team Leader on Team Effectiveness

PRESENTED BY SAMAN AHMAD (02) SHAILENDER KUMAR SINGH (08) PADMENDRA SINGH PATWAL (09) ABHISHEK KOHLI (17) PGDM (PT) 2009-12

Transformational Leadership: Impact of Team Leader on Team Effectiveness We investigated the relationship between the leadership style and the impact on the effectiveness of team performance & clarity of Vision, Roles, Structure of team and objectivity in the team. Total 10 teams of 5 member each were selected that were part of pharmaceutical & IT sales companies. Transformational leadership influenced team performance through the mediating effect of team potency. The effect of transformational leadership on team potency was moderated by clarity of vision, clarity of goals, conflict management, and structure of the team. Transformational leadership is a leadership approach that is defined as leadership that creates valuable and positive change in the followers with the end goal of developing followers into leaders. A transformational leader focuses on "transforming" others to help each other, to look out for each other, to be encouraging and harmonious, and to look out for the organization as a whole. With this leadership, the leader enhances the motivation, morale and performance of his followers through a variety of mechanisms. These include connecting the follower's sense of identity and self to the mission and the collective identity of the organization; being a role model for followers that inspires them; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, so the leader can align followers with tasks that optimizes their performance. James MacGregor Burns (1978)[1] first introduced the concepts of transformational leadership in his descriptive research on political leaders, but this term is now used in organizational psychology as well. According to Burns, transformational leadership is a process in which "leaders and followers help each other to advance to a higher level of morale and motivation". Burns related to the difficulty in differentiation between management and leadership and claimed that the differences are in characteristics and behaviors. He established two concepts: "transformational leadership" and "transactional leadership". According to Burns, the transformational approach creates significant change in the life of people and organizations. It redesigns perceptions and values, and changes expectations and aspirations of employees. Unlike in the transactional approach, it is not based on a "give and take" relationship, but on the leader's personality, traits and ability to make a change through example, articulation of an energizing vision and challenging goals. Transformational leaders are idealized in the sense that they are a moral exemplar of working towards the benefit of the team, organization and/or community. The full range of leadership introduces four elements of transformational leadership: 1. Individualized Consideration the degree to which the leader attends to each follower's needs, acts as a mentor or coach to the follower and listens to the follower's concerns and needs. The leader gives empathy and support, keeps communication open and places challenges before the followers. This also

encompasses the need for respect and celebrates the individual contribution that each follower can make to the team. The followers have a will and aspirations for self development and have intrinsic motivation for their tasks. 2. Intellectual Stimulation the degree to which the leader challenges assumptions, takes risks and solicits followers' ideas. Leaders with this style stimulate and encourage creativity in their followers. They nurture and develop people who think independently. For such a leader, learning is a value and unexpected situations are seen as opportunities to learn. The followers ask questions, think deeply about things and figure out better ways to execute their tasks. 3. Inspirational Motivation the degree to which the leader articulates a vision that is appealing and inspiring to followers. Leaders with inspirational motivation challenge followers with high standards, communicate optimism about future goals, and provide meaning for the task at hand. Followers need to have a strong sense of purpose if they are to be motivated to act. Purpose and meaning provide the energy that drives a group forward. The visionary aspects of leadership are supported by communication skills that make the vision understandable, precise, powerful and engaging. The followers are willing to invest more effort in their tasks, they are encouraged and optimistic about the future and believe in their abilities. 4. Idealized Influence Provides a role model for high ethical behavior, instills pride, gains respect and trust. Leadership and team effectiveness Team effectiveness refers to the system of getting people in a company or institution to work together effectively. The idea behind team effectiveness is that a group of people working together can achieve much more than if the individuals of the team were working on their own. Team effectiveness is determined by a number of factors, such as:

The right mix of skills. Team effectiveness depends in part on bringing together people who have different skills that somehow complement each other. This can mean different technical abilities or communication skills. In fact, teaming up people who share the exact same characteristics is often a recipe for disaster. Team effectiveness depends on people taking on different roles in a group setting. If there is no agreement on who does what in the group, it is unlikely that the team will prosper. The right motivation. Team effectiveness is directly linked to the interest that the group has on the project. If the job is too easy or too difficult, or if the rewards for achieving the end result do not seem worth the effort, the team may end up working half-heartedly in the project. The task should also have a clear outcome. Working towards a specific goal enhances team effectiveness significantly.

The ability to solve conflicts without compromising the quality of the project. Team work has one major downfall. Sometimes groups end up making decisions they know are not in the best interest of the project, just so they can keep the process moving. Conflict is innate to any work done in groups, and should be taken as part of the challenge rather than as something to be avoided by compromising. Team effectiveness should be increased, not compromised, through conflict.

One way to enhance team effectiveness is to agree beforehand on a code of conduct. As conflicts arise, it is important to know how to deal with them. What is allowed and what is not? How will the team deal with disagreements? Is open discussion favored or will the group vote on major decisions? Knowing what to expect and having the plan will make the process of working in group much easier. Relationship between team effectiveness and leadership In this study we aim to explain the patterns of leadership roles for team effectiveness in non economic organizations compared to economic organizations. For this purpose, we studied three successful organization types, i.e the amateur sports clubs (football, basketball), theater companies and, regional folk groups. Our basic hypothesis is that the relationship between the type of organization (specially teams) and the role of leadership is not random. Therefore, we believe that an empirical approach is necessary to test the assumptions about leadership and team effectiveness. Also these empirical results are supposed to lead to professional managers in economic organizations. First, we constructed thirteen key dimension variables for leadership behavior as follows: coaching, effective communication, encouraging teamwork, establishing high standards and getting results, effective delegation, rewarding performance, developing and releasing employees, building consensus, supporting reasonable risk- taking, forecast thinking, improving the organization, managing diversity, and overall effectiveness . Second, we defined team standards and effectiveness in twenty items. And finally, we tried to emphasize factors affecting leadership roles and team effectiveness. In this study, Natemeyer and Babko (1992) Management Practices Survey data are used. Data reliability are tested before the analysis and results are discussed at the end of the study.

Review: Article 1 This research study offers the first empirical test of the relationships among: 1. Creativity 2. Standardization 3. Team effectiveness The article examines both customer satisfaction and performance as outcomes because they are critically important, but very different, effectiveness criteria that exist for this and many other organizations. It also says creativity and standardization have similar effects on both variables. Focuses strictly on the main effects for a moment, one sees

an interesting picture emerge. For customer satisfaction, it is sgnificant, positive association for standardization, but none for creativity. Therefore, it the teams that adhere to established practices and follow documented procedures have higher levels of customer satisfaction. However, teams with more creative environments have significantly higher levels of performance, with work standardization not being a significant predictor. Conclusion: It can be concluded that customers prefer standardization as it removes ambiguity from their service interactions. However, with a highly skilled and well-trained workforce, like the service technician teams in this research, creative team environment rather than work standardization appears to benefit performance. Consequently, teams and, ultimately, organizations face an interesting dilemma in that they need to strike a balance between being creative and employing standardized work practices. Article 2: RELATING MEMBER ABILITY AND PERSONALITY TO WORK TEAM PROCESSES & TEAM EFFECTIVENESS Review: The article emphasizes that teams are important to Organizational Effectiveness, and the number of Organizations using teams is increasing, but little is known about the relationship between Team composition variables and Team effectiveness in actual work settings. The present study addresses the issue and also provides some insight into the way ability and personality is related to team viability through an indicator of team processes (social cohesion). Conscientious teams and high cognitive-ability teams perform better than teams that are less conscientious and lower in cognitive ability. It can also been seen that teams that are more agreeable and more emotionally stable are likely to have higher performance. Further, it can also be concluded that teams do not have any particularly disagreeable or introverted members were found to be higher performing teams. Conclusion: The Study suggests that interpersonally oriented personality characteristics such as agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability, can also be important predictors of team effectiveness. Agreeableness and emotional stability have not been found to consistently relate to performance for individuals, the article also suggests on team-level constructs that predict team performance and team viability. Article also demonstrated that part of the effect for some of these interpersonally oriented personality variables on team viability comes through social cohesiveness. Composing teams with members who develop positive social interactions and thereby experience synergistic cohesion thus enhances work-team performance. The study highlights the importance of choosing appropriate methods of operational composition variables. Article 3: Vertical Vs Shared Leadership as Predictors of the Effectiveness of Change Management Teams: An Examination of Aversive, Directive, Transactional, Transformational, & Empowering Leader Behaviors

Review: Important outcome from the mentioned study is that shared leadership is found to be an important predictor of team effectiveness. The results in the study state that a conscious strategy of distributing leadership to team members is likely to enhance team effectiveness. The article addresses the issue of Heroic Vs Shared Leadership findings in the study show that shared leadership is a more useful as compared to team effectiveness. It explains more (heroic) leadership. Vertical transformational leadership is found to be positively related to manager and team self-ratings of team effectiveness, and shared transformational leadership is found to be positively related to all three ratings of team effectiveness. Further the study concludes that affect the effectiveness of empowered teams by identifying leadership, in its many forms, as important factor of the effectiveness of empowered teams. Conclusion: Teams are becoming an increasingly important component in organizations. There has been an increasing need to better understand team leadership and team effectiveness. This research study examined a non-traditional social source of team leadership and examined its relationship. The study has examined an alternate social source of leadership, shared leadership, and found this alternate source of leadership to be important in explaining the effectiveness of teams. In this paper seven dimensions of effectiveness were measured with ratings from three sources: (a) Managerial ratings (b) Internal customer ratings (c) Team self-ratings Leadership Effectiveness in Global Virtual Teams ARTICLE REVIEW - 4 The article follows the trend toward physically dispersed work groups that have necessitated a fresh inquiry into the role and nature of team leadership in virtual settings. To accomplish it thirteen culturally diverse global teams from locations in Europe, Mexico, and the United States, were taken and assigned each team a project leader and task to complete. Later the findings suggested that effective team leaders demonstrate the capability to deal with paradox and contradiction by performing multiple leadership roles simultaneously (behavioural complexity). It was discovered that highly effective virtual team leaders act in a mentoring role and exhibit a high degree of understanding (empathy) toward other team members. At the same time, effective leaders are also able to assert their authority without being perceived as overbearing or inflexible. Thus effective leaders are found to be extremely effective at providing regular, detailed, and prompt communication with their peers and in articulating role relationships (responsibilities) among the virtual team members. It provides useful insights for managers interested in developing global virtual teams, as well as for academics interested in pursuing virtual team research.

Virtual team leaders are rated as effective by their members, demonstrate as first and foremost a mentoring quality characterized by concern for the members, understanding, and empathy. ARTICLE 5 The Importance Of Self- And Shared Leadership In Team Based Knowledge Work A MESO-LEVEL MODEL OF LEADERSHIP DYNAMICS ARTICLE REVIEW The research addresses the increasing need for novel approaches to leadership that deal with the challenges that the organizations face as they flatten, diversify, and confront increasingly the complex problems. For this they developed A Meso-Level Theoretical Model that outlined the relationship between self- and shared leadership, focusing on the intermediary processes of trust, potency, and commitment that would lead to the development of shared leadership and ultimately more of innovative knowledge creation. Implication An important boundary implication that the model follows is that they assumes team and organizational incentives as a place to encourage team building and to facilitate team over individual achievements. Conceptualizing leadership in this way lead to numerous unanswered questions regarding how team dynamics influence, and are influenced by, various forms of leadership (including lateral, upward, and downward influence attempts). As more work becomes knowledge work, work within organization is more to likely become more flexible and varied. This in turn requires teamwork of a new kind, one that is conducive to the expression of creativity and innovation. Decentralized forms of leadership are more necessary as well as the shared forms of leadership. ARTICLE 6 RELATING MEMBER ABILITY AND PERSONALITY TO WORK-TEAM PROCESSES AND TEAM EFFECTIVENESS ARTICLE REVIEW The study emphasises on examining the relationships among team composition (ability and personality), team process (social cohesion), and team outcomes (team viability and team performance). To optimise this for further results for finding out tem members characteristics four scoring methods were used: Mean Variance Minimum Maximum

With respect to composition variables, teams higher in general mental ability (GMA), conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability received higher supervisor ratings for team performance. Teams higher in GMA, extraversion, and emotional stability received higher supervisor ratings for team viability. Results also show that extraversion and emotional stability were associated with team viability through social cohesion. The major purpose of this study is to assess how member characteristics (e.g., ability and personality) of functioning work teams relate to differences in team effectiveness. This also included an analysis to examine various methods for operationalzing member characteristics (mean, variance, minimum, and maximum). They also explored social cohesion as an indicator of synergistic group processes through which some of the team composition characteristics operate. Conclusion Many higher-education institutions around the world are increasingly relying on the online learning model to deliver education to students who otherwise cannot or would not physically attend. This study examines the effect of different predictor variables on two variables of effectiveness of virtual learning teams: team performance and team satisfaction. Specifically, the diversified roles played by learning team leaders and leadership effectiveness, as well as team trust and propensity to trust, are examined. This study integrates the theories of both leadership and virtual teams in the context of e-learning, and through a field study of an undergraduate MIS online course collects data to investigate the existence of significant paths among the variables. The results of this study show that, in a virtual learning environment, diversified leadership roles contribute to leadership effectiveness; diversified leadership roles, leadership effectiveness, and propensity to trust all positively influence team trust, which in turn contributes to two indicators of team effectivenessperformance and satisfaction. In addition, team trust is found to be a significant variable that mediates the effect transmitted from leadership effectiveness to team performance, as well as from leadership effectiveness to team satisfaction. Educators can gain insight from the proposed theoretical model and field study results. To improve effectiveness of online learning teams, educators can consider assigning effective virtual team leaders and promoting trust among team members. Methodology: Samples & Procedures: The participants in the study represented 10 sales teams working in India in pharmaceutical sector and in IT sales. All the teams have achieved more than 100% of there repective budgets in the year 2009. By sampling teams both in pharmaceuticals

and It sector, we planned to increase our chances of obtaining substantial variation in the team values that were the focus of this study. Each team consisted of five members working together in an independent fashion to make the sales in there desigmnated territory. Each team reported to a manager and comprised a geographically isolated area, meaning that none of the teams included in this study shared the office facilities. Questioners were sent to the potential participants through individual emails. Each of the mail included an introductory letter from the authors, the mail explained that the participation in the study was strictly voluntary & the anonymity of respondents was ensured. All the respondents were male of different age group, and experience in there respective industry ranges from 1 year to 25 years. Measures The questionnaire contains 47 questions at all on the different parameters. One set was on Vision, Values, another was on Objectivity, another was on Roles, Structure, Resources and the last set of questions was on the leadership. All questions were answered on 5 a point Likert scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree). We obtained indexes of Clarity of Vision, Clarity of Values, Clarity of Roles, Objectivity, Structure of team, Ideal leadership, Inspirational Leadership, Intellectual Leadership & Individualized Leadership. In predicting the leadership style we tested the Clarity of Vision, Values & Roles with chi-square testing. Crosstabs
Case Processing Summary Cases Valid N Member * Clarity of Vision Member * Clarity of Value Member * Clarity of Roles Age * Clarity of Vision Age * Clarity of Value Age * Clarity of Roles Experience * Clarity of Vision Experience * Clarity of Value Experience * Clarity of Roles 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Percent 70.4% 70.4% 70.4% 70.4% 70.4% 70.4% 70.4% 70.4% 70.4% N 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 Missing Percent 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% 29.6% N 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 Total Percent 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Member * Clarity of Vision

Clarity of Vision 1 Member Team A Team B Team C Team D Team E Team F Team G Team H Team I Team J Total 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 13 Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 41.997
a

3 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 6

4 1 2 2 3 5 2 2 1 0 1 19

5 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 2 0 9

Total 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50

df 36 36 1

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .227 .111 .968

46.587 .002 50

50 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .30.

Since the table value of chi-square of 36 df at .227 significance level is higher than 41.997, it establishes that there was clarity of vision among all the teams.

Member * Clarity of Value

Crosstab Count Clarity of Value 1 Member Team A Team B Team C Team D Team E Team F Team G Team H Team I Team J Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 8 4 1 1 1 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 20 5 3 1 4 0 1 3 3 2 0 2 19 Total 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 49.395
a

df 36 36 1

sided) .068 .304 .388

39.817 .745 50

a. 50 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .10.

Member * Clarity of Roles

Crosstab Count Clarity of Roles 1 Member Team A Team B Team C Team D Team E Team F Team G Team H Team I Team J Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 7 4 4 3 2 3 4 1 3 1 2 2 25 5 0 0 3 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 11 Total 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 50

Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 48.984
a

df 36 36 1

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .073 .060 .048

50.003 3.901 50

a. 50 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .30.

Symmetric Measures Value Interval by Interval Ordinal by Ordinal N of Valid Cases a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. Pearson's R Spearman Correlation -.282 -.243 50 Asymp. Std. Errora .139 .142 Approx. Tb -2.038 -1.738 Approx. Sig. .047c .089c

Age * Clarity of Vision

Crosstab Count Clarity of Vision 1 Age 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 Total 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 4 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 19 5 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 9 Total 1 4 6 2 2 1 5 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 50

Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 96.041
a

df 88 88 1

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .262 .384 .745

91.292 .105 50

a. 115 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .06.

Symmetric Measures Value Interval by Interval Ordinal by Ordinal N of Valid Cases a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. Pearson's R Spearman Correlation .046 .061 50 Asymp. Std. Errora .153 .159 Approx. Tb .322 .421 Approx. Sig. .749c .676c

Age * Clarity of Value

Clarity of Value 1 Age 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 4 1 1 2 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 20 5 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 19 Total 1 4 6 2 2 1 5 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 50

Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. (2Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 69.954a 68.025 5.132 50 df 88 88 1 sided) .921 .944 .023

a. 115 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .02.

Symmetric Measures Value Interval by Interval Ordinal by Ordinal N of Valid Cases a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. Pearson's R Spearman Correlation .324 .303 50 Asymp. Std. Errora .108 .129 Approx. Tb 2.370 2.200 Approx. Sig. .022c .033c

Age * Clarity of Roles

Crosstab Count Clarity of Roles 1 Age 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 39 41 42 43 44 45 Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 4 1 1 3 1 1 0 3 2 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 25 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 1 11 Total 1 4 6 2 2 1 5 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 5 1 1 1 1 2 50

Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 81.874
a

df 88 88 1

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .664 .849 .001

74.391 11.297 50

a. 115 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .06.

Symmetric Measures Value Interval by Interval Ordinal by Ordinal N of Valid Cases a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. Pearson's R Spearman Correlation .480 .513 50 Asymp. Std. Errora .090 .105 Approx. Tb 3.792 4.138 Approx. Sig. .000c .000c

Experience * Clarity of Vision

Crosstab Count Clarity of Vision 1 Experience 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 26 Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 3 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 4 1 2 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 19 5 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Total 11 4 1 3 5 3 3 1 1 3 1 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 50

Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 100.427a 88.467 .140 50 df 76 76 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .032 .155 .708

a. 100 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .06.

Symmetric Measures Value Interval by Interval Ordinal by Ordinal N of Valid Cases a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. Pearson's R Spearman Correlation .053 .090 50 Asymp. Std. Errora .148 .156 Approx. Tb .371 .627 Approx. Sig. .713c .534c

Experience * Clarity of Value

Crosstab Count Clarity of Value 1 Experience 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 26 Total 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 4 4 1 1 2 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 20 5 2 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 19 Total 11 4 1 3 5 3 3 1 1 3 1 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 50

Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 50.775
a

df 76 76 1

Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .989 .982 .028

52.500 4.844 50

a. 100 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .02.

Symmetric Measures Value Interval by Interval Ordinal by Ordinal N of Valid Cases a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. Pearson's R Spearman Correlation .314 .321 50 Asymp. Std. Errora .106 .131 Approx. Tb 2.295 2.352 Approx. Sig. .026c .023c

Experience * Clarity of Roles

Crosstab Count Clarity of Roles 1 Experience 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 12 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 24 26 Total 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 4 5 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 25 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 11 Total 11 4 1 3 5 3 3 1 1 3 1 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 50

Chi-Square Tests Value Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases 64.990a 64.917 10.681 50 df 76 76 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .812 .814 .001

a. 99 cells (99.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .06.

Symmetric Measures Value Interval by Interval Ordinal by Ordinal N of Valid Cases a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. Pearson's R Spearman Correlation .467 .510 50 Asymp. Std. Errora .085 .103 Approx. Tb 3.658 4.106 Approx. Sig. .001c .000c

All the above statistical analysis establishes that there was a positive relationship between the age, experience with the clarity of Vision, Values, Roles among the tem members. Now we want to correlate that these parameters were because of leadership style. It was leader who was responsible in inculcating all these parameters in to the teams so that the teams can work effectively. So we correlate the following

Correlations Mean Structure Adequate Mean Leadership Mean Leadership Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Mean Structure Adequate Resource & Training Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Mean Objectivity Among TM Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Working Accountability Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 50 .788
**

Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Mean Objectivity Among TM .608** .000 50 .443
**

Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM .699** .000 50 .654** .000 50 .562** .000 50 .594** .000

Resource & Training 1 .788** .000 50 1

Working Accountability .580** .000 50 .625

**

.000 50 .608
**

.001 50 .443
**

.000 50 .362
**

50 1

.000 50 .580
**

.001 50 .625
**

.010 50 .362
**

50 1

.000 50 .699** .000 50

.000 50 .654** .000 50

.010 50 .562** .000 50 50 .594** .000 50

50 1

50

The value of corelations which are more than .60 signifies the high positive corelations among the variables & less than .60 signifies that there is moderate correlation among the selected variabls. As evedent from the above table the leader of the team is responsible for the Structure of the team,Adequate Resources, Training, Objectiveity among the team, cohesiveness, accountabilty & clarity among the team members. Now we tested each variable of leadership style with the other variables and found out the following results.

Correlations Adequate Mean Ideal Leader Mean Ideal Leader Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Adequate Training Provided Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Adequate Resources Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Structure Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Objectivity Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Accountability Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 50 .656
**

Training Provided 1 .656** .000 50 1

Adequate Resources .581** .000 50 .763

**

Structure .634** .000 50 .549

**

Objectivity .258 .070 50 .251 .079 50 .118 .413 50 -.029 .841

Accountability .357* .011 50 .316* .025 50 .308* .029 50 .478** .000 50 .192 .182

.000 50 .581
**

.000 50 .763
**

.000 50 .498
**

50 1

.000 50 .634
**

.000 50 .549
**

.000 50 .498
**

50 1

.000 50 .258 .070 50 .357

*

.000 50 .251 .079 50 .316

*

.000 50 .118 .413 50 .308

*

50 -.029 .841 50 .478

**

50 1

50 .192 .182 50

50 1

.011 50

.025 50

.029 50

.000 50

50

Correlations Mean Structure Mean Inspirational Leader Mean Inspirational Leader Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Mean Structure Adequate Resource & Training Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Mean Objectivity Among TM Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Working Accountability Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 50 .651** .000 50 .790** .000 50 .583
**

Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Mean Objectivity Among TM Working Accountability

**

Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM 1 .651

**

Adequate Resource & Training .790

**

.583

.545** .000 50 .594** .000 50 .625** .000 50 .362** .010

.000 50 1

.000 50 .654** .000

.000 50 .562** .000 50 .443** .001

50 .654** .000 50 .562

**

50 1

50 .443
**

50 1

.000 50 .545
**

.000 50 .594
**

.001 50 .625
**

50 .362
**

50 1

.000 50

.000 50

.000 50

.010 50 50

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed.

Correlations Inspitational Leader Simplify procedures Inspitational Leader Simplify procedures Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Mean Structure Adequate Resource & Training Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Mean Objectivity Among TM Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Working Accountability Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 49 .465
**

Mean Structure Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM 1 .465** .001 49 1 Adequate Resource & Training .697** .000 49 .654
**

Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Mean Objectivity Among TM .445** .001 49 .562
**

Working Accountability .456** .001 49 .594** .000 50 .625** .000 50 .362** .010

.001 49 .697
**

.000 50 .654
**

.000 50 .443
**

50 1

.000 49 .445
**

.000 50 .562
**

.001 50 .443
**

50 1

.001 49 .456** .001 49

.000 50 .594** .000 50

.001 50 .625** .000 50 50 .362** .010 50

50 1

50

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlations Mean Structure Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM Mean Clarity of Vision & Pearson Correlation Roles Among TM Sig. (2-tailed) N Mean Structure Adequate Resource & Training Mean Objectivity Among TM Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Working Accountability Mean Individualised Leader Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 50 .654
**

Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Mean Objectivity Among TM .562** .000 50 .443
**

Adequate Resource & Training

Mean Individualised Leader .550** .000 50 .658** .000 50 .639** .000 50 .507** .000

Working Accountability .594** .000 50 .625

**

.654** .000 50 1

.000 50 .562
**

.001 50 .443
**

.000 50 .362
**

50 1

.000 50 .594
**

.001 50 .625
**

.010 50 .362
**

50 1

.000 50 .550** .000 50

.000 50 .658** .000 50

.010 50 .639** .000 50 50 .507** .000 50

50 1

50

Correlations
Mean Mean Ideal Leader Inspirati onal Leader Mean Mean Adequate Training Provided Adequate Resources
**

Intellectual Individualiz Leader ed Leader

**

Structure

Objectivity Accountability
**

Mean Ideal Leader

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

.701

**

.850

.793

**

.656

.581

**

.634

.258 .070 50 .366

**

.357* .011 50 .411** .003 50 .446** .001 50 .418** .003 50 .316* .025 50 .308* .029 50 .478** .000 50 .192 .182

.000 50 .701
**

.000 50 .805
**

.000 50 .736
**

.000 50 .733
**

.000 50 .650
**

.000 50 .673
**

50 1

Mean Inspirational Leader

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

.000 50 .850
**

.000 50 .805
**

.000 50 .846
**

.000 50 .762
**

.000 50 .662
**

.000 50 .565
**

.009 50 .281
*

50 1

Mean Intellectual Pearson Correlation Leader Sig. (2-tailed) N Mean Individualized Leader Adequate Training Provided Adequate Resources Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Structure Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Objectivity Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Accountability Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

.000 50 .793** .000 50 .656

**

.000 50 .736** .000 50 .733

**

.000 50 .846** .000 50 .762

**

.000 50 .672** .000

.000 50 .554** .000 50 .763

**

.000 50 .517** .000 50 .549

**

.048 50 .428** .002 50 .251 .079 50 .118 .413 50 -.029 .841

50 1

50 .672
**

50 1

.000 50 .581
**

.000 50 .650
**

.000 50 .662
**

.000 50 .554
**

.000 50 .763
**

.000 50 .498
**

50 1

.000 50 .634
**

.000 50 .673
**

.000 50 .565
**

.000 50 .517
**

.000 50 .549
**

.000 50 .498
**

50 1

.000 50 .258 .070 50 .357

*

.000 50 .366** .009 50 .411

**

.000 50 .281* .048 50 .446

**

.000 50 .428** .002 50 .418

**

.000 50 .251 .079 50 .316

*

.000 50 .118 .413 50 .308

*

50 -.029 .841 50 .478

**

50 1

50 .192 .182 50

50 1

.011 50

.003 50

.001 50

.003 50

.025 50

.029 50

.000 50

50

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Descriptive Statistics Mean Mean Ideal Leader Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Working Accountability Mean Objectivity Among TM 4.0333 .75066 50 3.8300 .63374 50 4.0080 3.7200 Std. Deviation .81712 .85545 N 50 50

Correlations Mean Conflicts, Mean Clarity of Mean Ideal Leader Pearson Correlation Mean Ideal Leader Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Working Accountability Mean Objectivity Among TM Sig. (1-tailed) Mean Ideal Leader Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Working Accountability Mean Objectivity Among TM N Mean Ideal Leader Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Working Accountability Mean Objectivity Among TM 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 .000 50 50 .000 50 50 .005 50 50 . 50 50 .000 .000 . .005 .516 . .000 .562 .000 . .362 .000 .000 1.000 .000 .000 .507 .594 1.000 .362 1.000 .655 Vision & Roles Among TM .655 1.000 Cohesiveness & Working Accountability .507 .594 Mean Objectivity Among TM .516 .562

Model Summaryb Model R 1

dime

Adjusted R R Square .481 Square .447 Std. Error of the Estimate .60773

.693a

nsio

a. Predictors: (Constant), Mean Objectivity Among TM, Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Working Accountability, Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM b. Dependent Variable: Mean Ideal Leader ANOVAb Model 1 Regression Residual Total Sum of Squares 15.728 16.989 32.717 df 3 46 49 Mean Square 5.243 .369 F 14.195 Sig. .000a

a. Predictors: (Constant), Mean Objectivity Among TM, Mean Conflicts, Cohesiveness & Working Accountability, Mean Clarity of Vision & Roles Among TM b. Dependent Variable: Mean Ideal Leader

Discussions: This study explored how team leaders behaviour influence and motivate the team members to perform there job better by inculcating the team value, clarify the roles, managing conflicts, put adequate process with in the team, reorganize the team structure. The individualized leadership & intellectual leadership styles were more of value than other leadership styles.